Observational studyThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2017
Improving specialist drug prescribing in primary care using task and error analysis: an observational study.
Observational study in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic literature review of pharmacists in general practice in supporting the implementation of shared care agreements in primary care.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Specialist medication monitoring and prescribing in primary care: case study of shared care agreements in Northern England, UK.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- A mixed methods study on medicines information needs and challenges in New Zealand general practice.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Detailed analysis of 'work as imagined' in the use of intravenous insulin infusions in a hospital: a hierarchical task analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
- The impact of a diagnostic decision support system on the consultation: perceptions of GPs and patients.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic prescribing has benefited from computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSSs); however, no published studies have evaluated the potential for a CDSS to support GPs in prescribing specialist drugs.
aimTo identify potential weaknesses and errors in the existing process of prescribing specialist drugs that could be addressed in the development of a CDSS. DESIGN AND
settingSemi-structured interviews with key informants followed by an observational study involving GPs in the UK.
methodTwelve key informants were interviewed to investigate the use of CDSSs in the UK. Nine GPs were observed while performing case scenarios depicting requests from hospitals or patients to prescribe a specialist drug. Activity diagrams, hierarchical task analysis, and systematic human error reduction and prediction approach analyses were performed.
resultsThe current process of prescribing specialist drugs by GPs is prone to error. Errors of omission due to lack of information were the most common errors, which could potentially result in a GP prescribing a specialist drug that should only be prescribed in hospitals, or prescribing a specialist drug without reference to a shared care protocol. Half of all possible errors in the prescribing process had a high probability of occurrence.
conclusionA CDSS supporting GPs during the process of prescribing specialist drugs is needed. This could, first, support the decision making of whether or not to undertake prescribing, and, second, provide drug-specific parameters linked to shared care protocols, which could reduce the errors identified and increase patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.